NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED will hold its annual meeting via conference call on Monday, July 7th at 5:00PM EST. Anyone wishing to participate can due so by contacting tim_burns@newyorkriversunited.org and asking for call-in information.
ANNUAL MEETING: CONFERENCE CALL
TIME: 5:00 PM
DATE: JULY 7TH, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Press Release -- West Canada
NEWS RELEASE
DATE: September 19, 2007
FOR RELEASE: Immediately
CONTACT: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
(315) 339-2097
State River Advocate Asks Spitzer To Lead
West Canada Creek Watershed Efforts
New York Rivers United Says Bad Situation Getting Worse;
Now Is Time For Top Leader’s Involvement
Rome,NY – Rome-based New York Rivers United has asked Governor Eliot Spitzer to become personally involved in the on-going dispute over allocation of the water resources of the West Canada Creek watershed.
“The West Canada Creek Watershed is one of our state’s finest. Much of the system’s allocation of water resources is not based on sound science or current law,” said NYRU executive director Bruce Carpenter. “Instead, it is based on outdated and conflicting laws and rules enacted in the past century. While often-competing demands for water increase daily, there continues to be lack of sound and current information.”
Water levels at Hinckley are now at an all-time low. Sporting groups are alarmed over negative impacts to this world-class fishery resulting from peaking hydropower plant operations, and local residents along the Creek are also concerned about dwindling water flows. The New York State Canal Corporation continues to draw water from the West Canada/Hinckley system even after the primary recreation season has ended.
“Local governments, citizens, sporting groups and others are calling attention to an issue the has been lingering for years, because no one has been willing to assume a leadership role and address the problem in a comprehensive way,” said NYRU’s Carpenter. “The current debate has not rectified the problem. We believe that without leadership from the Governor’s office, this bad situation will only worsen.”
- more -
Carpenter points out that State Assemblymember RoAnn Destito has recently introduced legislation in Albany that would drastically increase the amount of water the Mohawk Valley Water Authority can withdraw from the West Canada/Hinckley system to provide drinking water for MVWA customers.
NYRU wants to develop a program for identifying and addressing direct and cumulative impacts of the various uses of the creek to ensure an appropriate balance between the competing uses of these waters that is protective of all uses and that will restore and protect these important water resources.
Carpenter said, “Leadership is needed to bring all parties to a negotiating table. Someone at the highest level must call for a complete and comprehensive evaluation of all issues. Parties must then use relevant information to draft a new operational plan that brings the system up-to-date, making it compatible with science and law as it now is written. Science and law are the building blocks that must be used.”
In its letter to Gov. Spitzer, New York Rivers United said, “As New York’s leading river conservation advocate, we call upon you, as the elected governor, to assume this responsibility and to bring all the parties together. We urge you to support completion of the necessary studies, so that negotiations can begin and can be productive. We must not continue in the direction we are currently headed.”
NYRU is an award-winning not-for-profit 501(c)(3) membership organization working throughout New York State to improve water quality, river access, recreational opportunities, ecological diversity, scenic attributes and riparian land use.
#
Attachments:
(1) Copy of September 13, 2007, letter from NYRU to Gov. Spitzer
(2) Copy of September 12, 2007, Resolution adopted by Trenton Town Board
DATE: September 19, 2007
FOR RELEASE: Immediately
CONTACT: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
(315) 339-2097
State River Advocate Asks Spitzer To Lead
West Canada Creek Watershed Efforts
New York Rivers United Says Bad Situation Getting Worse;
Now Is Time For Top Leader’s Involvement
Rome,NY – Rome-based New York Rivers United has asked Governor Eliot Spitzer to become personally involved in the on-going dispute over allocation of the water resources of the West Canada Creek watershed.
“The West Canada Creek Watershed is one of our state’s finest. Much of the system’s allocation of water resources is not based on sound science or current law,” said NYRU executive director Bruce Carpenter. “Instead, it is based on outdated and conflicting laws and rules enacted in the past century. While often-competing demands for water increase daily, there continues to be lack of sound and current information.”
Water levels at Hinckley are now at an all-time low. Sporting groups are alarmed over negative impacts to this world-class fishery resulting from peaking hydropower plant operations, and local residents along the Creek are also concerned about dwindling water flows. The New York State Canal Corporation continues to draw water from the West Canada/Hinckley system even after the primary recreation season has ended.
“Local governments, citizens, sporting groups and others are calling attention to an issue the has been lingering for years, because no one has been willing to assume a leadership role and address the problem in a comprehensive way,” said NYRU’s Carpenter. “The current debate has not rectified the problem. We believe that without leadership from the Governor’s office, this bad situation will only worsen.”
- more -
Carpenter points out that State Assemblymember RoAnn Destito has recently introduced legislation in Albany that would drastically increase the amount of water the Mohawk Valley Water Authority can withdraw from the West Canada/Hinckley system to provide drinking water for MVWA customers.
NYRU wants to develop a program for identifying and addressing direct and cumulative impacts of the various uses of the creek to ensure an appropriate balance between the competing uses of these waters that is protective of all uses and that will restore and protect these important water resources.
Carpenter said, “Leadership is needed to bring all parties to a negotiating table. Someone at the highest level must call for a complete and comprehensive evaluation of all issues. Parties must then use relevant information to draft a new operational plan that brings the system up-to-date, making it compatible with science and law as it now is written. Science and law are the building blocks that must be used.”
In its letter to Gov. Spitzer, New York Rivers United said, “As New York’s leading river conservation advocate, we call upon you, as the elected governor, to assume this responsibility and to bring all the parties together. We urge you to support completion of the necessary studies, so that negotiations can begin and can be productive. We must not continue in the direction we are currently headed.”
NYRU is an award-winning not-for-profit 501(c)(3) membership organization working throughout New York State to improve water quality, river access, recreational opportunities, ecological diversity, scenic attributes and riparian land use.
#
Attachments:
(1) Copy of September 13, 2007, letter from NYRU to Gov. Spitzer
(2) Copy of September 12, 2007, Resolution adopted by Trenton Town Board
West Canada Creek--Gov Letter
September 13, 2007
Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
RE: West Canada Creek Watershed—Water Wars
Dear Governor Spitzer:
Attached to this letter is a Resolution adopted by the Town of Trenton Town Board on Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2007. This resolution is a result of new legislation and court actions that are currently in process. New York Rivers United believes that this will be the first of many similar actions taken by local governments, citizens, sporting groups and others to call attention to an issue the has been lingering for years, because no one has been willing to assume a leadership role and address the problem in a comprehensive way.
The West Canada Creek Watershed is one of our state’s finest. Yet, much of the demand on the system is NOT based on sound science or current law. Instead, it is based on outdated and conflicting laws and rules enacted in the past century. While the competition for this resource grows, there continues to be lack of sound and current information.
New York Rivers United is not against development; we understand the need for drinking water. NYRU believes that good, clean, safe drinking water is essential. The need for energy is also a given. While hydropower is not completely benign, it can be made “green,” mitigating its adverse impacts. NYRU has been involved statewide in actions to accomplish this. The New York State Canal system is no longer primarily a transportation lane. It is a recreation way, which is certainly important.
On the other side of the equation, the West Canada Creek is a world-class trout fishery, widely enjoyed for boating and fishing. Property values continue to increase along its shores, and Hinckley Reservoir has a State Park. Growth in the watershed is dependent on well water, which is tied to levels in the reservoir. Water now being wasted because of the current old transport system is not being addressed, and the fluctuating flows from power plants are adversely affecting the lower creek. West Canada System is not the only source for drinking water and out–of-basin transfers can lead to larger problems.
The issues are not new, nor are they unique to West Canada. The fight for water is ongoing across this country, and because of increasing, often-competing demands for water, there will be more contention over the issue in New York. The resolution of the battle is not new either. Science and law are the building blocks that must be used.
Leadership is needed to bring all parties to a negotiating table! Someone at the highest level must call for a complete and comprehensive evaluation of all issues. Parties must then use relevant information to draft a new operational plan that brings the system up-to-date, making it compatible with science and law as it now is written.
New York Rivers United calls upon you, as the elected governor, to assume this responsibility and to bring all the parties together. We urge you to support completion of the necessary studies, so that negotiations can begin and can be productive. We must not continue in the direction we are currently headed.
NYRU has asked for such action at other levels of government (see attached letter), but it is clear that new direction must come from the top. The West Canada Creek Watershed is at risk!
We thank you for your interest and look forward to your response. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at (315) 339-2097?
Bruce R. Carpenter
Executive Director
New York Rivers United
Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
RE: West Canada Creek Watershed—Water Wars
Dear Governor Spitzer:
Attached to this letter is a Resolution adopted by the Town of Trenton Town Board on Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2007. This resolution is a result of new legislation and court actions that are currently in process. New York Rivers United believes that this will be the first of many similar actions taken by local governments, citizens, sporting groups and others to call attention to an issue the has been lingering for years, because no one has been willing to assume a leadership role and address the problem in a comprehensive way.
The West Canada Creek Watershed is one of our state’s finest. Yet, much of the demand on the system is NOT based on sound science or current law. Instead, it is based on outdated and conflicting laws and rules enacted in the past century. While the competition for this resource grows, there continues to be lack of sound and current information.
New York Rivers United is not against development; we understand the need for drinking water. NYRU believes that good, clean, safe drinking water is essential. The need for energy is also a given. While hydropower is not completely benign, it can be made “green,” mitigating its adverse impacts. NYRU has been involved statewide in actions to accomplish this. The New York State Canal system is no longer primarily a transportation lane. It is a recreation way, which is certainly important.
On the other side of the equation, the West Canada Creek is a world-class trout fishery, widely enjoyed for boating and fishing. Property values continue to increase along its shores, and Hinckley Reservoir has a State Park. Growth in the watershed is dependent on well water, which is tied to levels in the reservoir. Water now being wasted because of the current old transport system is not being addressed, and the fluctuating flows from power plants are adversely affecting the lower creek. West Canada System is not the only source for drinking water and out–of-basin transfers can lead to larger problems.
The issues are not new, nor are they unique to West Canada. The fight for water is ongoing across this country, and because of increasing, often-competing demands for water, there will be more contention over the issue in New York. The resolution of the battle is not new either. Science and law are the building blocks that must be used.
Leadership is needed to bring all parties to a negotiating table! Someone at the highest level must call for a complete and comprehensive evaluation of all issues. Parties must then use relevant information to draft a new operational plan that brings the system up-to-date, making it compatible with science and law as it now is written.
New York Rivers United calls upon you, as the elected governor, to assume this responsibility and to bring all the parties together. We urge you to support completion of the necessary studies, so that negotiations can begin and can be productive. We must not continue in the direction we are currently headed.
NYRU has asked for such action at other levels of government (see attached letter), but it is clear that new direction must come from the top. The West Canada Creek Watershed is at risk!
We thank you for your interest and look forward to your response. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at (315) 339-2097?
Bruce R. Carpenter
Executive Director
New York Rivers United
Thursday, August 23, 2007
West Canada Creek--People
Elected state officials to contact:
Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
phone: (518) 474-8390
State Assemblymember RoAnn M. Destito
~ 116th Assembly District –
e-mail: destitr@assembly.state.ny.us
~ Albany Office ~
Room 621
Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
phone: (518) 455-5454
~ District Office ~
Room 401
State Office Building
207 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501
phone: (315) 732-1055
State Senator Joseph A. Griffo
~ 47th Senate District ~
~ Albany Office ~
Room 944 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
phone: (518) 455-3334
fax: (518) 426-6921
~ District Office ~
207 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501
phone: (315) 793-9072
fax: (315) 793-0298
State Assemblymember David R. Townsend
~ 115th Assembly District – see map attached
e-mail: townsed@assembly.state.ny.us
~ Albany Office ~
Room 458 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
phone: (518) 455-5334
~ District Office ~
4767 State Route 233
P.O. Box 597
Westmoreland, NY 13490
phone: (315) 853-7260
Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
phone: (518) 474-8390
State Assemblymember RoAnn M. Destito
~ 116th Assembly District –
e-mail: destitr@assembly.state.ny.us
~ Albany Office ~
Room 621
Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
phone: (518) 455-5454
~ District Office ~
Room 401
State Office Building
207 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501
phone: (315) 732-1055
State Senator Joseph A. Griffo
~ 47th Senate District ~
~ Albany Office ~
Room 944 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
phone: (518) 455-3334
fax: (518) 426-6921
~ District Office ~
207 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501
phone: (315) 793-9072
fax: (315) 793-0298
State Assemblymember David R. Townsend
~ 115th Assembly District – see map attached
e-mail: townsed@assembly.state.ny.us
~ Albany Office ~
Room 458 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
phone: (518) 455-5334
~ District Office ~
4767 State Route 233
P.O. Box 597
Westmoreland, NY 13490
phone: (315) 853-7260
West Canada Creek--Letter
August xx, 2007
Assemblymember RoAnn M. Destito - 116th AD
Room 621 Room 401
Legislative Office Building State Office Building
Albany, NY 12248 207 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501
Opposition to A 03381-A West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act
Dear Assemblymember Destito:
I live in XXXXX, and I depend on West Canada Creek’s water for day-to-day living needs and also for recreation. I’m very concerned about the water quality and quantity in the West Canada Creek/Hinckley system, especially in light of all the current debate going on presently. I think the legislation you are proposing will make a bad situation worse.
I oppose the “West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act” and urge you to reconsider your support for the measure. If this bill is passed, it will be harmful to the ecology now and in the long-term.
What is needed is to conduct a thorough scientific study of this entire system. Before any major changes that could adversely affect the entire system are implemented, we must clearly understand all the problems, identify all the system’s users, and evaluate the different scenarios for environmental impacts.
We also need to enforce the regulations already on the books. Those existing regulations mandate that scientific information be collected and reviewed before any action can be taken for increased water withdrawals. This has not been done yet.
Thank you very much for your interst in this issue.
XXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxx
Assemblymember RoAnn M. Destito - 116th AD
Room 621 Room 401
Legislative Office Building State Office Building
Albany, NY 12248 207 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501
Opposition to A 03381-A West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act
Dear Assemblymember Destito:
I live in XXXXX, and I depend on West Canada Creek’s water for day-to-day living needs and also for recreation. I’m very concerned about the water quality and quantity in the West Canada Creek/Hinckley system, especially in light of all the current debate going on presently. I think the legislation you are proposing will make a bad situation worse.
I oppose the “West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act” and urge you to reconsider your support for the measure. If this bill is passed, it will be harmful to the ecology now and in the long-term.
What is needed is to conduct a thorough scientific study of this entire system. Before any major changes that could adversely affect the entire system are implemented, we must clearly understand all the problems, identify all the system’s users, and evaluate the different scenarios for environmental impacts.
We also need to enforce the regulations already on the books. Those existing regulations mandate that scientific information be collected and reviewed before any action can be taken for increased water withdrawals. This has not been done yet.
Thank you very much for your interst in this issue.
XXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxx
West Canada Creek --Action
Talking Points
Opposition to
Assembly Bill: A 03381-A West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act
(Destito is sponsor)
Senate Bill: S 4176-A West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act
(Griffo is sponsor)
O I strongly oppose the so-called “West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act” and urge you to reconsider your support for the measure. It is premature and ill-advised. Rather, what is needed at this critical juncture is:
(1) a comprehensive, scientific watershed analysis on the West Canada Creek, and
(2) enforcement of current regulations.
O I do support the legislative initiative presently being developed by Assemblymember Marc Butler to fund a comprehensive, scientific watershed analysis of the West Canada Creek system.
O Beneficial uses for Hinckley Reservoir and the West Canada Creek include trout waters, recreation, including boating and fishing, water supply, and energy supply. The system faces increased pressures. Hydro plants are peaking; there is a demand for more water for development, and all of this has led to increased involvement by affected citizens.
O I think we need to develop a program for identifying and addressing direct and cumulative impacts of the various uses of the creek to ensure an appropriate balance between the competing uses of these waters that is protective of all uses and that will restore and protect these important water resources.
O I have a growing worry regarding adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and recreational uses of West Canada Creek. I am concerned that the uses of water supply and energy supply are degrading the more sensitive uses of fish and wildlife and recreation.
(1) Need for watershed analysis
One major problem is a lack of scientific information. A comprehensive scientific study of West Canada Creek is what is needed. This is essential if all stakeholders are to understand the complex issues involved in flow management. Such a study can only help resolve the impasses that are facing us now.
Before any major changes that could adversely affect the entire system are implemented, we must clearly understand all the problems, identify all the system’s users, and evaluate the different scenarios for environmental impacts.
(2) Need for enforcement of current regulations
Additionally, such a study is required under current law. New York State’s Environmental Quality Review Act mandates that scientific information be collected and reviewed before any action can be taken for increased water withdrawals. This has not been done yet.
Energy and water supply uses are already adversely affecting fish and wildlife and recreational uses on the West Canada Creek system. The state Department of Environmental Conservation has the duty to address the adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and recreational uses. DEC’s legal authorities/responsibilities come from the Clean Water Act, the state’s Environmental Conservation Law, and the state’s Environmental Quality Review Act.
Opposition to
Assembly Bill: A 03381-A West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act
(Destito is sponsor)
Senate Bill: S 4176-A West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act
(Griffo is sponsor)
O I strongly oppose the so-called “West Canada Creek Riparian Rights Act” and urge you to reconsider your support for the measure. It is premature and ill-advised. Rather, what is needed at this critical juncture is:
(1) a comprehensive, scientific watershed analysis on the West Canada Creek, and
(2) enforcement of current regulations.
O I do support the legislative initiative presently being developed by Assemblymember Marc Butler to fund a comprehensive, scientific watershed analysis of the West Canada Creek system.
O Beneficial uses for Hinckley Reservoir and the West Canada Creek include trout waters, recreation, including boating and fishing, water supply, and energy supply. The system faces increased pressures. Hydro plants are peaking; there is a demand for more water for development, and all of this has led to increased involvement by affected citizens.
O I think we need to develop a program for identifying and addressing direct and cumulative impacts of the various uses of the creek to ensure an appropriate balance between the competing uses of these waters that is protective of all uses and that will restore and protect these important water resources.
O I have a growing worry regarding adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and recreational uses of West Canada Creek. I am concerned that the uses of water supply and energy supply are degrading the more sensitive uses of fish and wildlife and recreation.
(1) Need for watershed analysis
One major problem is a lack of scientific information. A comprehensive scientific study of West Canada Creek is what is needed. This is essential if all stakeholders are to understand the complex issues involved in flow management. Such a study can only help resolve the impasses that are facing us now.
Before any major changes that could adversely affect the entire system are implemented, we must clearly understand all the problems, identify all the system’s users, and evaluate the different scenarios for environmental impacts.
(2) Need for enforcement of current regulations
Additionally, such a study is required under current law. New York State’s Environmental Quality Review Act mandates that scientific information be collected and reviewed before any action can be taken for increased water withdrawals. This has not been done yet.
Energy and water supply uses are already adversely affecting fish and wildlife and recreational uses on the West Canada Creek system. The state Department of Environmental Conservation has the duty to address the adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and recreational uses. DEC’s legal authorities/responsibilities come from the Clean Water Act, the state’s Environmental Conservation Law, and the state’s Environmental Quality Review Act.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Notice Of Annual Meeting
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING
To: Members of New York Rivers United
From: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
Date: March 29, 2007
Re: 2007 Annual Meeting
The 2007 annual meeting of New York Rivers United will be held on Saturday, May 19, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. It will be held at the law offices of NYRU Board Chair Ray Bragar:
Bragar Wexler
885 3rd Ave. Suite 3040
New York, NY 10022
The meeting agenda is as follows:
* review of 2006 financial reports
* review of annual report
* election of officers
For information and proxies, send an e-mail to tim_burns@newyorkriversunited.org
To: Members of New York Rivers United
From: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
Date: March 29, 2007
Re: 2007 Annual Meeting
The 2007 annual meeting of New York Rivers United will be held on Saturday, May 19, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. It will be held at the law offices of NYRU Board Chair Ray Bragar:
Bragar Wexler
885 3rd Ave. Suite 3040
New York, NY 10022
The meeting agenda is as follows:
* review of 2006 financial reports
* review of annual report
* election of officers
For information and proxies, send an e-mail to tim_burns@newyorkriversunited.org
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Annual Meeting--Conference Call
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING—CONFERENCE CALL
NYRU WILL HOLD ITS ANNUAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2006 AT 4:00PM EST
via Conference CALL
ALL MEMBERS ARE INVITED!
DETAILS OF HOW TO CALL IN:
NUMBER: 1800-610-4500
ACCESS CODE: 13442
TIME 4:00PM EST
NYRU WILL HOLD ITS ANNUAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2006 AT 4:00PM EST
via Conference CALL
ALL MEMBERS ARE INVITED!
DETAILS OF HOW TO CALL IN:
NUMBER: 1800-610-4500
ACCESS CODE: 13442
TIME 4:00PM EST
Friday, June 16, 2006
Navigation --NYRU Joins For Support
Adirondack Council • Adirondack Mountain Club • American Canoe Association • American Rivers, Mid-Atlantic Region • American Whitewater •The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development • EPL/Environmental Advocates • New York State Conservation Council • New York State League of Conservation Voters • New York Rivers United Parks and Trails New York • Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks Scenic Hudson • Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter
By Hand
June 14, 2006
Hon. Alexander B. Grannis
Member, NYS Assembly
712 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
Re: In support of A. 10048, Public Navigation Rights
Dear Assemblyman Grannis:
We, the undersigned, are writing in support of A. 10048, titled “Public Passage in Navigable Waterways,” whose primary purpose is codification in a single State statute of the longstanding existing common law public right of navigation. Enactment of A. 10048 will make the law concerning this right much more accessible, understandable and transparent. At present the law concerning this public right is scattered in numerous case law decisions and, without passage of this bill, the right will continue to be difficult to find and difficult to interpret, causing continued confusion and conflict between riparian landowners and waterway users.
We recognize that you were a prime sponsor of this legislation when the bill was active in the 1989 – 1991 period, when it passed the Assembly in 1990, and we appreciate the key role that you have played in re-introducing it at this time. The continuity that you have provided, after action on the earlier legislation was placed on hold in June 1991 at the beginning of the 9-year court case concerning the South Branch of the Moose River, has been critical in moving ahead again towards enactment.
The successful conclusion of the Moose River case in the Court of Appeals, important as it is, did not lessen the need for this legislation.
The same problems of inaccessibility to the law and difficulty in interpreting numerous applicable cases still exists. Also, this is a statewide issue, not limited to the Adirondacks despite the focus there. The fact that conservation easements have been acquired by the State on thousands of acres of timber lands in the Adirondacks providing much new access on navigable rivers in that region, doesn’t mean that a comprehensive statewide solution isn’t needed to the problems already described.
A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg 2
A. 10048 is written in plain English; it is easy to understand. The bill assures riparian landowners that the public has no right to be on private property other than to make necessary portages incidental to the public right of navigation and then only to the minimum extent required to accomplish those purposes. It also authorizes riparian landowners to establish portage routes on their land along the shores of navigable waterways. It references existing provisions of the General Obligations Law, reassuring landowners that they have no extra responsibility or duty of care, beyond normal, to keep their premises safe for those who are exercising the public right of navigation.
It has been nearly four decades since Paul Jamieson, the dean of Adirondack canoeing, began to call attention to the longstanding existence of these public rights. Later he advocated strongly for the legislation, now numbered A. 10048. It has been 16 years since this legislation was first introduced in 1989. After all of this time and considering the positive findings of the Court of Appeals in the Moose River case, settling the key issue that caused the hiatus in the legislation in those earlier times, it is more than time for this bill to be enacted. It is time for the State of New York to definitively describe, in a single statue and in plain English, and give visibility to this public right, a right that has had a shadowy existence in the labyrinth of the common law for 228 years. Thank you for all that you are doing to ensure passage of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Brian Houseal, Executive Director
Adirondack Council
Neil Woodworth, Executive Director
Adirondack Mountain Club
Pamela S. Dillon, Executive Director
American Canoe Association
Stephanie D. Lindloff, Associate Director, Dam Programs
American Rivers, Mid-Atlantic Region
Mark Singleton, Executive Director
American Whitewater
Tom Alworth, Executive Director
The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development
Robert J. Moore, Executive Director
EPL/Environmental Advocates
Wally John, Legislative Vice-President
New York State Conservation Council
A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg. 3
Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director
New York State League of Conservation Voters
Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
New York Rivers United
Robin Dropkin, Executive Director
Parks and Trails New York
Peter Bauer, Executive Director
Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks
Ned Sullivan, Executive Director
Scenic Hudson
Roger T. Gray and John Nemjo, Co-chairs, Adirondack Committee
Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter
By Hand
June 14, 2006
Hon. Alexander B. Grannis
Member, NYS Assembly
712 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
Re: In support of A. 10048, Public Navigation Rights
Dear Assemblyman Grannis:
We, the undersigned, are writing in support of A. 10048, titled “Public Passage in Navigable Waterways,” whose primary purpose is codification in a single State statute of the longstanding existing common law public right of navigation. Enactment of A. 10048 will make the law concerning this right much more accessible, understandable and transparent. At present the law concerning this public right is scattered in numerous case law decisions and, without passage of this bill, the right will continue to be difficult to find and difficult to interpret, causing continued confusion and conflict between riparian landowners and waterway users.
We recognize that you were a prime sponsor of this legislation when the bill was active in the 1989 – 1991 period, when it passed the Assembly in 1990, and we appreciate the key role that you have played in re-introducing it at this time. The continuity that you have provided, after action on the earlier legislation was placed on hold in June 1991 at the beginning of the 9-year court case concerning the South Branch of the Moose River, has been critical in moving ahead again towards enactment.
The successful conclusion of the Moose River case in the Court of Appeals, important as it is, did not lessen the need for this legislation.
The same problems of inaccessibility to the law and difficulty in interpreting numerous applicable cases still exists. Also, this is a statewide issue, not limited to the Adirondacks despite the focus there. The fact that conservation easements have been acquired by the State on thousands of acres of timber lands in the Adirondacks providing much new access on navigable rivers in that region, doesn’t mean that a comprehensive statewide solution isn’t needed to the problems already described.
A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg 2
A. 10048 is written in plain English; it is easy to understand. The bill assures riparian landowners that the public has no right to be on private property other than to make necessary portages incidental to the public right of navigation and then only to the minimum extent required to accomplish those purposes. It also authorizes riparian landowners to establish portage routes on their land along the shores of navigable waterways. It references existing provisions of the General Obligations Law, reassuring landowners that they have no extra responsibility or duty of care, beyond normal, to keep their premises safe for those who are exercising the public right of navigation.
It has been nearly four decades since Paul Jamieson, the dean of Adirondack canoeing, began to call attention to the longstanding existence of these public rights. Later he advocated strongly for the legislation, now numbered A. 10048. It has been 16 years since this legislation was first introduced in 1989. After all of this time and considering the positive findings of the Court of Appeals in the Moose River case, settling the key issue that caused the hiatus in the legislation in those earlier times, it is more than time for this bill to be enacted. It is time for the State of New York to definitively describe, in a single statue and in plain English, and give visibility to this public right, a right that has had a shadowy existence in the labyrinth of the common law for 228 years. Thank you for all that you are doing to ensure passage of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Brian Houseal, Executive Director
Adirondack Council
Neil Woodworth, Executive Director
Adirondack Mountain Club
Pamela S. Dillon, Executive Director
American Canoe Association
Stephanie D. Lindloff, Associate Director, Dam Programs
American Rivers, Mid-Atlantic Region
Mark Singleton, Executive Director
American Whitewater
Tom Alworth, Executive Director
The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development
Robert J. Moore, Executive Director
EPL/Environmental Advocates
Wally John, Legislative Vice-President
New York State Conservation Council
A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg. 3
Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director
New York State League of Conservation Voters
Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
New York Rivers United
Robin Dropkin, Executive Director
Parks and Trails New York
Peter Bauer, Executive Director
Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks
Ned Sullivan, Executive Director
Scenic Hudson
Roger T. Gray and John Nemjo, Co-chairs, Adirondack Committee
Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Action Alert: Clean Water Rule Making
New York Rivers United
P.O. Box 1460, Rome, NY 13442
www,newyorkriversunited.org
Tel. (315) 339-2097 Fax (315)339-6028
Email:newyorkriversunited.org
ACTION ALERT
Please HELP To Protect Our Wetlands and Streams From Damaging"“Mitigation" Rule – Send Comments to the EPA and Corps Today
There is simply no comparison: natural wetlands and streams are more ecologically sound and are better for purifying drinking water, protecting against flooding, maintaining water quality, and providing habitat than streams and wetlands constructed to "replace" destroyed natural water resources.
Despite the poor track record of the mitigation program to date, in March of this year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) jointly proposed a rule revising the standards governing compensatory mitigation for aquatic resources that allows for vastly greater flexibility in meeting mitigation requirements. By making it easier to compensate for destroying ecologically crucial streams and wetlands, this proposal will effectively promote, not discourage continued destruction.
The public can comment on this rule until June 30. Please weigh in yourself by sending a letter to the EPA by email to: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov, or by US mail to: USEPA Docket Center, Attention Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0020, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Below is a sample letter that can be used:
SAMPLE LETTER:
To the EPA and Army Corps Water Docket:
I am writing in opposition to the recently proposed compensatory mitigation rule (Docket No. EPA-HW-OW-2006-0020). Our nation’s wetlands and streams provide habitat for a variety of species, improve water quality, and protect communities by reducing flooding. The proposed rule would weaken protections for these waters by sanctioning uncertain mitigation practices, effectively encouraging the increased destruction of these important water resources.
Your agencies have a long-standing and accepted sequence to deal with impacts to streams and wetlands: adverse impacts should be avoided whenever possible, unavoidable impacts should be minimized as much as possible, and only then should mitigation be considered. The proposed rule undermines this critical sequence with its overwhelming focus on mitigation.
This rule promotes an “anything goes” approach with no scientific backing. Under this proposal completely filling in streams could be “mitigated” by creating a wetland twenty miles away, or destroying wetlands could be “mitigated” by preserving upland buffer areas that are not even wet—this approach does nothing to protect our nation’s waters
The proposal puts too much discretion in the hands of each Corps’ district engineer to approve almost anything as mitigation, fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated at all, and blatantly promotes the mitigation banking industry, taking into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances.
This rule fails entirely to further the national goal of “no net loss” of wetlands in any way and also fails to promote the health of our essential wetlands and streams. This rule needs to be significantly rewritten to treat mitigation as a last resort and to ensure that the best science is used to protect and enhance our nation’s streams and wetlands. If those principles cannot be fully integrated into the proposal, then this rule should be withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Address
City, State Zip Code
MORE BACKGROUND:
MAIN PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING
• The proposal ignores the fact that compensatory mitigation should be the last resort. While the rule does include some brief language requiring avoidance and minimization of impacts before mitigation is considered, the language is not as comprehensive as current guidelines. Further, the proposed rule undermines the bedrock principle of “avoid and minimize first” by encouraging reliance on unproven and inadequate compensatory mitigation practices.
• The proposal authorizes an “anything goes” approach to mitigation. The new rule purports to embrace a “watershed approach” – aligning wetland and stream mitigation with the needs of the watershed. But the rule actually punts on any real watershed approach to guiding mitigation. It does not require creation of watershed plans to guide mitigation, and doesn’t even require existing plans to be used. Instead, the Corps will simply take the word of the project applicant as to how their project benefits the watershed, even if a rarer type of wetland is replaced with a more common and easily restored type, or even if mitigation occurs far from the impact site.
• The proposal leaves far too much to the discretion of the district engineer. The rule language suggests much, but requires little. In setting requirements for mitigation, the word “may” is used 18 times and “should” is used 38 times instead of non-discretionary words such as “must” or “shall,” allowing enormous discretion to the District Engineers to waive requirements. Here are just three examples:
- ... overall compensatory mitigation project should be provided long-term protection...
- The real estate instrument for the long-term protection of the compensatory mitigation site should restrict or prohibit incompatible uses (e.g., clear cutting)...
- ... the district engineer should apply a higher mitigation ratio if the requirements are to be met through the use of preservation credits.
- The district engineer could even allow destruction of a stream to be “mitigated” by creating or preserving a wetland and/or its upland buffer many miles away.
• The rule fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated. There is no scientific data showing that the functions of headwater streams, and wetlands such as bogs and fens, can be reproduced. The rule purports to provide for replacement of the services of these systems, when it would really offer only poor substitutes that do not replace the functions of these streams and wetlands.
• The rule’s blatant promotion of the mitigation banking industry is inappropriate. The rule sets up a strong preference for the use of mitigation banks over other forms of mitigation. The rule goes so far as to eliminate the main competition of mitigation banks – “in-lieu-fee mitigation” entirely (instead of simply developing equivalent standards) and takes into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances. This is despite the fact that the only study to look at the success of mitigation banks compared to other forms of mitigation found it to be no better at replacing wetlands lost to development.
• The rule fails to provide essential improvements in monitoring and enforcement. The proposed rule leaves to the discretion of the district engineer whether monitoring should measure success in achieving functions and for how long. Effective measurement of success over a minimum of 5 years, and longer when necessary, should be mandatory. Also, required enforcement measures should be articulated in the rule.
• The rule allows for preservation of existing wetlands and streams -- and even the preservation of dry uplands -- as "mitigation" for the destruction of other wetlands or streams.
The rule allows for nearly unlimited use of preservation of existing wetlands, buffers and even uplands as mitigation. While all can enhance mitigation sites, preservation of existing water resources does not replace the functions or acreage of those that are destroyed. Why would a developer even bother with risky restoration projects when they could simply buy up existing wetlands and put an easement on them? There isn’t even any hard requirement that higher mitigation ratios be required for such “mitigation.” The rule should limit the use of preservation practices to augmenting restoration and replacement projects that achieve, on their own, at least an acre replacement for ever
NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION IN CONJUCTION WITH THE CLEAN WATER NETWORK, WHICH NYRU IS A MEMBER OF. WE THANK THEM FOR THEIR ASSIISTANCE.
New York Rivers United
DEDICATED TO CONSERVE, PROTECT AND RESTORE NEW YORK'S RIVERS
P.O. Box 1460, Rome, NY 13442
www,newyorkriversunited.org
Tel. (315) 339-2097 Fax (315)339-6028
Email:newyorkriversunited.org
ACTION ALERT
Please HELP To Protect Our Wetlands and Streams From Damaging"“Mitigation" Rule – Send Comments to the EPA and Corps Today
There is simply no comparison: natural wetlands and streams are more ecologically sound and are better for purifying drinking water, protecting against flooding, maintaining water quality, and providing habitat than streams and wetlands constructed to "replace" destroyed natural water resources.
Despite the poor track record of the mitigation program to date, in March of this year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) jointly proposed a rule revising the standards governing compensatory mitigation for aquatic resources that allows for vastly greater flexibility in meeting mitigation requirements. By making it easier to compensate for destroying ecologically crucial streams and wetlands, this proposal will effectively promote, not discourage continued destruction.
The public can comment on this rule until June 30. Please weigh in yourself by sending a letter to the EPA by email to: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov, or by US mail to: USEPA Docket Center, Attention Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0020, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Below is a sample letter that can be used:
SAMPLE LETTER:
To the EPA and Army Corps Water Docket:
I am writing in opposition to the recently proposed compensatory mitigation rule (Docket No. EPA-HW-OW-2006-0020). Our nation’s wetlands and streams provide habitat for a variety of species, improve water quality, and protect communities by reducing flooding. The proposed rule would weaken protections for these waters by sanctioning uncertain mitigation practices, effectively encouraging the increased destruction of these important water resources.
Your agencies have a long-standing and accepted sequence to deal with impacts to streams and wetlands: adverse impacts should be avoided whenever possible, unavoidable impacts should be minimized as much as possible, and only then should mitigation be considered. The proposed rule undermines this critical sequence with its overwhelming focus on mitigation.
This rule promotes an “anything goes” approach with no scientific backing. Under this proposal completely filling in streams could be “mitigated” by creating a wetland twenty miles away, or destroying wetlands could be “mitigated” by preserving upland buffer areas that are not even wet—this approach does nothing to protect our nation’s waters
The proposal puts too much discretion in the hands of each Corps’ district engineer to approve almost anything as mitigation, fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated at all, and blatantly promotes the mitigation banking industry, taking into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances.
This rule fails entirely to further the national goal of “no net loss” of wetlands in any way and also fails to promote the health of our essential wetlands and streams. This rule needs to be significantly rewritten to treat mitigation as a last resort and to ensure that the best science is used to protect and enhance our nation’s streams and wetlands. If those principles cannot be fully integrated into the proposal, then this rule should be withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Address
City, State Zip Code
MORE BACKGROUND:
MAIN PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING
• The proposal ignores the fact that compensatory mitigation should be the last resort. While the rule does include some brief language requiring avoidance and minimization of impacts before mitigation is considered, the language is not as comprehensive as current guidelines. Further, the proposed rule undermines the bedrock principle of “avoid and minimize first” by encouraging reliance on unproven and inadequate compensatory mitigation practices.
• The proposal authorizes an “anything goes” approach to mitigation. The new rule purports to embrace a “watershed approach” – aligning wetland and stream mitigation with the needs of the watershed. But the rule actually punts on any real watershed approach to guiding mitigation. It does not require creation of watershed plans to guide mitigation, and doesn’t even require existing plans to be used. Instead, the Corps will simply take the word of the project applicant as to how their project benefits the watershed, even if a rarer type of wetland is replaced with a more common and easily restored type, or even if mitigation occurs far from the impact site.
• The proposal leaves far too much to the discretion of the district engineer. The rule language suggests much, but requires little. In setting requirements for mitigation, the word “may” is used 18 times and “should” is used 38 times instead of non-discretionary words such as “must” or “shall,” allowing enormous discretion to the District Engineers to waive requirements. Here are just three examples:
- ... overall compensatory mitigation project should be provided long-term protection...
- The real estate instrument for the long-term protection of the compensatory mitigation site should restrict or prohibit incompatible uses (e.g., clear cutting)...
- ... the district engineer should apply a higher mitigation ratio if the requirements are to be met through the use of preservation credits.
- The district engineer could even allow destruction of a stream to be “mitigated” by creating or preserving a wetland and/or its upland buffer many miles away.
• The rule fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated. There is no scientific data showing that the functions of headwater streams, and wetlands such as bogs and fens, can be reproduced. The rule purports to provide for replacement of the services of these systems, when it would really offer only poor substitutes that do not replace the functions of these streams and wetlands.
• The rule’s blatant promotion of the mitigation banking industry is inappropriate. The rule sets up a strong preference for the use of mitigation banks over other forms of mitigation. The rule goes so far as to eliminate the main competition of mitigation banks – “in-lieu-fee mitigation” entirely (instead of simply developing equivalent standards) and takes into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances. This is despite the fact that the only study to look at the success of mitigation banks compared to other forms of mitigation found it to be no better at replacing wetlands lost to development.
• The rule fails to provide essential improvements in monitoring and enforcement. The proposed rule leaves to the discretion of the district engineer whether monitoring should measure success in achieving functions and for how long. Effective measurement of success over a minimum of 5 years, and longer when necessary, should be mandatory. Also, required enforcement measures should be articulated in the rule.
• The rule allows for preservation of existing wetlands and streams -- and even the preservation of dry uplands -- as "mitigation" for the destruction of other wetlands or streams.
The rule allows for nearly unlimited use of preservation of existing wetlands, buffers and even uplands as mitigation. While all can enhance mitigation sites, preservation of existing water resources does not replace the functions or acreage of those that are destroyed. Why would a developer even bother with risky restoration projects when they could simply buy up existing wetlands and put an easement on them? There isn’t even any hard requirement that higher mitigation ratios be required for such “mitigation.” The rule should limit the use of preservation practices to augmenting restoration and replacement projects that achieve, on their own, at least an acre replacement for ever
NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION IN CONJUCTION WITH THE CLEAN WATER NETWORK, WHICH NYRU IS A MEMBER OF. WE THANK THEM FOR THEIR ASSIISTANCE.
New York Rivers United
DEDICATED TO CONSERVE, PROTECT AND RESTORE NEW YORK'S RIVERS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)